… and manages to cause death and destruction. At least, according to this guy.
I am not unsympathetic to the death of 5 children. I am sure they were fully innocent, and this is the act of a lone, upset, confused, sad, twisted man. The whole story is sad and terrible.
However, a gun did not kill these children, a man did. Yes he used a gun, but that really doesn’t matter unless you’re pushing an agenda. This man did what he did because he had deep problems, and had he lacked a gun he likely would have found some other way. When someone driving a car hits and kills someone, we say the driver killed the person, not the car. If that person was drunk, we say a drunk driver killed the person, not Anheuser-Busch. When a person slips in the bathtub, we don’t blame soap. Why are guns singled out as the one inanimate object that is somehow able to do things on its own?
But what I really wish to comment on is Mr. Rivers’ comments in his posting. I had started to write this long piece, dissecting his assertions and arguments…. but I got tired and opted to edit my posting here to a simple thing.
Mr. Rivers, can you demonstrate and explain how your proposed solutions will actually solve the problem that you see existing? Don’t just keep reciting the same old mantras of gun control, no emotional appeals, but actually articulate how your proposed means will achieve your desired ends. I’ll wait right here for your answer. Joe Huffman has been waiting for nearly 5 years.
Mr. Rivers, I used to come from a similar place as you. Then I became educated on the topic, arguably from “the other side”. Knowing “both sides of the issue” instead of clinging to my old one side, logic won out and I now find myself where I am today. As a result, it’s difficult for me to look at viewpoints such as yours as anything but ignorant; I was ignorant on this matter, so it helps me recognize ignorance when I see it. Mr. Rivers, if you’re willing to engage in open, calm, and rational discourse on this matter, I’m happy to speak with you.